United States v. Castetter

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

December 18, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.COREY S. CASTETTER

OPINION AND ORDER

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN JUDGE

The
Defendant, Corey S. Castetter, pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute a Schedule II controlled substance,
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
The probation officer drafted a Presentence Investigation
Report (PSR) in preparation for sentencing. The Court now
resolves the Defendant's objections to the PSR.

BACKGROUND

On
September 4, 2014, law enforcement officers conducted a
traffic stop of a vehicle in Michigan, during which officers
located four ounces of crystal methamphetamine. Pursuant to a
search warrant authorized by a state magistrate in Michigan,
this vehicle had been fitted with a GPS unit. According to
information gathered from the GPS unit, on August 30, 2014,
this vehicle arrived at the Defendant's residence,
located at 6174 West Noe Street, Kimmel, Indiana. The vehicle
arrived at the Defendant's residence at about 12:48 PM,
and stayed for about 30 minutes before returning to Michigan.
An informant told Michigan authorities that he knew the
vehicle's driver had driven to Kimmell, Indiana, and
returned to Michigan with methamphetamine. On September 4,
2014, GPS data showed that the vehicle arrived at the
Defendant's residence at about 12:10 PM, and stayed for
about 1 hour and 22 minutes before returning to Michigan. The
vehicle made no significant stops before officers executed
the search warrant on the vehicle in Michigan.

After
the Michigan authorities located the four ounces of crystal
methamphetamine in the vehicle, Task Force Officer (TFO) Sean
Lundy of the Drug Enforcement Agency obtained and executed a
state search warrant of the Defendant's residence. This
also occurred on September 4, 2014. The Defendant and his
adult son were in the residence when the warrant was
executed. The Defendant's residence is a one-story house
with a basement. In the house, officers located surveillance
video equipment that was in a box, including infrared
equipment for night vision. A closet in the Defendant's
bedroom contained a Winchester, .30-30 caliber, lever-action,
high-powered rifle. Although the rifle was stored in a
leather case, TFO Lundy testified that it was not “kept
in very good condition” and was not being kept in a
manner consistent with being a collector's item.
(Sentencing Evidentiary Hr'g Tr. 55:17, Mar. 14, 2016.)
The officers also found a semi-automatic shotgun leaning
against a wall in the corner of a room that connected the
Defendant's bedroom with the living room and kitchen
area. TFO Lundy testified that one of these firearms was
loaded and believed to the best of his knowledge that the
shotgun was loaded. A one-gallon Ziploc bag containing a
distribution amount of synthetic marijuana or
“spice” was also found in a breezeway near the
kitchen that led to the basement's entrance, meaning that
the shotgun and the bag of synthetic marijuana were on
opposite ends of the house.

In the
basement, there was a workbench area and an open crawl space
filled with dirt. In the workbench area, the officers found
about an ounce of crystal methamphetamine that was on top of
some storage containers. Further, a digital scale was stored
above the workbench amid the floor joists, along with a spoon
on the work table that contained a liquified drug substance.
There was also a “pre-loaded” syringe that
contained narcotics, as well as other syringes. (Id.
24:15.) In addition to the digital scale, the officers
located a triple-beam style scale. In the crawl space, the
officers saw digging tools and a piece of cardboard covering
an area of dirt that appeared freshly disturbed based on its
texture. The officers also saw a plastic bag partially
sticking out from the dirt. When the officers retrieved the
bag, they located bundles of United States currency that were
tied together with new rubber bands. A false wall in the
basement near the stairs contained envelopes with
approximately $1, 000 in each, and many of those envelopes
had numbers on them that “would be . . . consistent
with the price of the ounces of methamphetamines.”
(Id. 35:4-16.) A reliable drug dog later alerted to
the presence of drugs on the money, which TFO Lundy testified
was an indication that “the money there or the currency
has been, in the past . . . involved in the vicinity or close
with narcotics.” (Id. 53:5-13.) The officers
recovered about $62, 090 in cash from the Defendant's
basement, which was buried in the dirt or hidden behind a
wall. The parties have stipulated that $49, 050 of this money
is drug money.[1]

The
Defendant was charged with possession with intent to
distribute a Schedule II controlled substance,
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(Count 1); maintaining drug-involved premises, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) (Count 2); and possession of a
controlled substance, including methamphetamine, a Schedule
II controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844
(Count 3). On August 20, 2015, the Defendant entered a plea
of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment [ECF No. 16] Pursuant
to the terms of the Plea Agreement [ECF No. 38], the
Government agreed to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 of the Indictment
at the time of sentencing.

The PSR
includes a two-level enhancement to the base offense level on
grounds that the Defendant possessed “a dangerous
weapon (including a firearm).” U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(b)(1). The base offense level was also increased by two
levels for maintaining a premises for the purpose of
manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance.
Id. § 2D1.1(b)(12). The Defendant objected to
both of these enhancements. In the First Addendum to the PSR
[ECF No. 52], the probation officer summarized the
Defendant's position that the dangerous weapon
enhancement is inappropriate because the Defendant lived in a
rural setting and both he and his son are hunters. Further,
both weapons were identified as unloaded hunting rifles that
were secured in gun cases far from the drugs in the house.
The Government disagreed with the Defendant's description
of the facts. After reviewing the offense conduct,
investigative documents (including photographs), and speaking
with the case agent, the probation officer listed several
facts supporting the enhancement and concluded the
enhancement was justified. Regarding the drug premises
enhancement, the Defendant asserted that there was a lack of
evidence to support the enhancement, particularly addressing
the frequency of drug related purposes at the residence. The
Government principally responded that the facts were legally
sufficient to support the enhancement, and the probation
officer determined the enhancement was justified after
reviewing the relevant information. The Court scheduled an
evidentiary hearing to address the objections.

Following
the evidentiary hearing, the Defendant maintained his
position that both enhancements are unsupported by the
case's facts and the applicable law. The Court will
address each objection in turn, and for the reasons stated
below, finds that both enhancements were appropriately
applied.

ANALYSIS

A.
Gun Enhancement

Section
2D.1.1(b)(1) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines
Manual allows for a two-level increase in the base offense
level ‘if a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was
possessed.” The Commentary to this enhancement states
that

The enhancement for weapon possession . . . reflects the
increased danger of violence when drug traffickers possess
weapons. The enhancement should be applied if the weapon was
present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was
connected with the offense. For example, the enhancement
would not be applied if the defendant, arrested at the
defendant's residence, had an unloaded hunting rifle in
the closet.

U.S.S.G. &sect; 2D1.1 cmt. n.11(A). The Seventh Circuit has
&ldquo;repeatedly held that &lsquo;the Government bears the
initial burden of demonstrating [by a preponderance of the
evidence] that the defendant possessed a weapon in a place
where drugs were present, &#39; and that &lsquo;once the
Government meets its burden, the defendant must demonstrate
that it was clearly improbable that the weapon was connected
to the offense.&#39;&rdquo; United States v.
Bjorkman, 270 F.3d 482, 492 (7th Cir. 2001) (first
quoting United States v. Booker, 248 F.3d 683, 689
(7th Cir. 2001); then United States v. Rollins, 544
F.3d 820, 837 (7th Cir. 2008). To meet its burden, the
Government only needs to prove that &ldquo;the weapon was
possessed during the offense, &rdquo; Rollins, 544
F.3d at 837, and possession of the weapon may be actual or
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.